One of the funniest and most insightful comments ever posted on this forum some months ago went along these lines: Some one asked some one else to describe the Canadian political structure, more exactly how the political vehicle functioned, and without skipping a beat a/.'r replied "Its a clown car, manned by one-eyed clowns."Which of course brought replies of "Not much different on this side of the border either."

Albertans. Imagine Texas with snow, and you have Alberta. Culturally the province is more conservative than most of the US: oil, attempts at privatized health care, silly hats, rodeos, fear of taxation, the whole shebang. Sometimes even the accent!

There are more than just Old Order Mennonites [wikipedia.org] or Hutterites [wikipedia.org]. Not all drive a horse and buggy or only work related vehicles. Some actually have cars, go to the malls, and dress just like most other people, etc. But often they are considered 'very religious'. And they are very good business people and as such understand that their riding needs to be represented in government. So not all Mennonites are opposed to political participation.

I am not Mennonite but I had to do work in a predominantly Mennonite town called Winkler [wikipedia.org] in southern Manitoba a long time ago for about six months (population about 10,000). I rented a place there for the duration of the project. Good people, if a little closed until they get to know you. At the time it was (and it very well still might be) a dry town' [wikipedia.org] except for one beer hall with a 'hillbilly' feel where outsiders felt out of place. About 5 km west is a town called Morden which has a population of around 8,000. The funny thing is that it looked to me like Morden had enough bars for 18,000 people. Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

The other thing that is kind of funny was the limited family names. Seemed like the list of last names was extremely dominated by around 12 or 14 including names like: Friesen, Thiessen, Kreider, Neufeld, Neudorf, Teichroeb, Enns, Epp, Funk, Hiebert, Hintz, Wall, and few more. In a town of 10,000. And there were a number of favourite first names like Abe. It was funny and sometimes confusing. I think I knew about 3 or 4 Abe Walls, and 2 or 3 Frank Hieberts. It was funny listening to someone getting paged at the facility I was doing work at: "Phone line 6 for Frank Hiebert... the old one, pick up line 6."

I lived in the area for three years, and your description is hilariously accurate. The only thing I'd add is that nicknames ("duck boots" comes to mind) were quite prevalent, especially within the greater "Friesen" clan since it's far and away the most common surname.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Klassen, since I knew more of them than most of the names on your list.

This applies more to rural Alberta now. Calgary (nicknamed Cowtown with the world's largest rodeo) for example, has a population of 1.1 million people and the first Muslim mayor of a major city in Canada who is of Ismaili descent. This obviously does not reflect the right wing extremely white Alberta of say a few decades ago (yeah I'm white). Alberta was known for having some supremacist (ahem) clans in the past. They might still exist but definitely are quite rarefied now. But granted, Alberta is a traditionally politically right of centre province. I don't think it has ever elected a left of centre government. And for what it's worth, some people there designate the area from Calgary on south as 'Utah North' due to the huge number of Mormons in the area. But in general, definitely a cowboy province. And yes I lived there before for about 5 years (Calgary).

And conversely, most Texans have never been outside their own state. And despite being dead last in education, dead last in civilization, and dead last in culture, for some reason most of them don't WANT to leave their own state and think everywhere else is a "librul hellhole."

Hell, they even think they invented barbeque... when it turns out it was imported to Europe (as barbacoa) from the Caribbean and traveled to the Americas with Spanish and French settlers. Not only that, but Texas barbecue is universally a dry, tasteless mess that is only edible by slathering it with a ton of sauce.

I'm sad to see the parent poster marked down - this comment was dead-on accurate. Far too many Texans are far too filled with hubris regarding their own state, and very little regard for their fellow states in the USA or the nations of the rest of the world.

Hell, their own brain-damaged governor actually started up secession talk when he was pandering to the Tea Party fringe.

They'd gladly give you the shirt off their back, but if they're from a rural area you might have no idea of what they're saying to you. (There are accents there that haven't been spoken in Ireland in 400 years -- sadly, only a couple of Welshman I met on vacation were even more incomprehensible. Mind you, they'd been drinking, but I couldn't even begin to follow what they were saying. I'm hone

Well I figured this would happen after the terrorism meme ran its course. Next up watch as any act which gives the corps or government more power will be given a "protect our childrenz!" name to ensure they can pass it as no politician will want his opponent to be able to come with with ads like this...cue dramatic music..."When congressman porkman was given a chance to protect our children from the criminals that prey on them by passing the "Watch out for the kids" act of 2012 he turned it down and actually worked to block it. if I am elected I will ensure that I, John Kickbackus will ensure that the entire power of the government will be used to watch over our children, our most precious of resources. Won't you help me protect them?" (Kickbackus is surrounded by a bunch of adorable tykes).

You watch, after they are done ramming down the "protect our precious IP...err children!" crap the next to go will be any tools that can allow privacy or security like Truecrypt. They will have talking heads like Nancy Grace wallpaper the airwaves with pictures of some perv and say "This is nothing but a tool for child molesters!" and then you'll be looking at 10 years for even having a copy of software that the government doesn't have a master key to. Kinda sad how the west spent all that money and lives fighting the great totalitarian communist regimes only to slowly become fascist regimes once the wall fell huh? But I'm sure no matter what happens our corporate master will enjoy immunity and make out like robber barons and as long as the 1% have ever increasing wealth its good right?

I just sent him an email telling him that we need to ban curtains because obviously only people that murder other people in their living rooms have any use for curtains. So if you support having curtains, you are supporting mass-murderers.

Sadly, they're going to get away with a hell of a lot of damage before their term runs out, because the people were stupid enough to give them a majority.

Either that, or somebody's going to take up arms. I'm not particularly in favour of that option, but I know people who are taking a long hard look at the oath they took on joining the military... you know, the one to protect this country from threats both domestic and foreign?

no, it's a false dichotomy and you should not accept its premises, or you're legitimating it.

Schneier provided a much better answer to the problem with surveillance:

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

That is utter nonsense. There are no "inherent human rights." The only way you get "rights" is (a) someone has to define them, either specifically or in general, (b) someone has to have the power to defend them, (c) and then they actually have to be defended.

As long as people confuse the real situation with this "inherent" meme, they'll fail at actually solving the problem. For instance, in the USA, (c) above is where we fail. We've defined them specifically (those mentioned in the bill of rights and a few others), we've defined them generally (the 9th amendment), the government certainly has the power to defend them... but it rarely does -- in fact, it is much more likely to be the very party abusing them. This happens specifically because rights are not inherent -- they are simply grants supported by power. When power is focused on other issues, rights often mean nothing at all, other than you're proceeding under a set of incorrect assumptions.

There are no "inherent human rights...they are simply grants supported by power.

Well, not really true. The inherent rights to your own life and liberty arise from the assumption that people own themselves. Of course, this is an assumption that we've made that has allowed democracy and freedom to flourish. You might not accept that assumption. You might start with the assumption that society has ownership of the people, in which case you'll likely end up with a communistic government. But we started with the assumption that we own ourselves, which makes sense because outside the contex

"Against warrantless entry of your home? You must be abusing a child!""Against public cameras tracking your every move? You must be planning to abduct a child!""Against drug prohibition? You must want to give drugs to children!""Against warrantless wire-tapping? You must be talking about internet surveillance legislation!"

It wasn't quite that bad. He said you were either with the child pornographers or with the government. Given those two options, I'm not really sure which one is less bad. With the law-abiding citizens doesn't seem to be an option. Given that these days child pornographers includes teenagers who send naked photos to each other, parents who photograph their children in the bath, and people who distribute illustrations of nude fictional children, I think on balance I'd rather be with them than with the power-crazed sociopaths.

"Against warrantless entry of your home? You must be abusing a child!"
"Against public cameras tracking your every move? You must be planning to abduct a child!"
"Against drug prohibition? You must want to give drugs to children!"
"Against warrantless wire-tapping? You must be a Nazi

While there is wide opposition to the bill in Canada, including every province's privacy commissioner, the federal government's privacy commissioner, and many people across party lines, with a majority in parliament the conservatives will ram this law through faster than Justice Minister Vic Toews (pronounced taze... like tazer) ramming a mistress [blogspot.com]. They have a track record of cutting off debate they don't like. Meanwhile, the government currently has the ability to get access to this information, as long as they first obtain a warrant from a judge.

This is the government that shut down the federal gun registry and eliminated the long form census based on privacy concerns. The hypocrisy is not surprising considering it is well known the publicly 'devout' Christian justice minister (and unofficial "Minister of Family Values") introducing the bill is divorced as a result of keeping a decades younger mistress with whom he fathered a child and at least one documented case of conflict of interest. Needless to say, the various privacy commissioners and opposition Members of Parliament are not amused at being classified as pedophiles (since they are against the government on this one), and several have stated this [winnipegfreepress.com]: ' "Apparently, if you care about civil liberties in this country you obviously side with child pornographers, murderers," she (Green party Leader Elizabeth May) said.'

So non-Canadians understand, in the Canadian system of government, the leader of a party has final say on who can run for the party in each riding (district in American vernacular). And he/she has the ability to kick elected members out of the party. If you aren't in a party the rules allow you almost no right to speak in the house in order to give your opinion, or ask questions of the government in question period. In other words, you have little ability to represent your riding. You must vote as you are told or be ostracized. And any party member who works with you will face the same penalty. This means that since the conservatives have a majority in the house and the senate, this law will be passed regardless on how Canadians feel about it. Personally I think the Canadian system is flawed and only avoided these kinds of issues by luck in the past. Now that parties are exploiting these democratic inadequacies, the whole thing is going downhill fast.

Canada has a Charter of Rights and a Constitution. No law can be passed that violates those. The Constitution itself says that it is the supreme law of the land. This proposed law clearly violates Section 8 and simply can't stand. They'll pass it anyway because they're authoritarians that want to find out any little detail that can be used against you if you ever want to run for office. Look at what they tried to do to Jack Layton last election: "HE GOT A MASSAGE!".

But this law will be struck down hard and fast by the first judge that sees a case where this evidence is used.

Oh, come now. If I had a full suit of chainmaille when I was a kid I'd have happily and eagerly rode my bike all over the neighborhood with it. Of course I'd also be brandishing a lance and vanquishing evil but...

Don't try to rationalize it. Call it out for what it is: a money grab. It's all about money.

They want you to keep focused on their justification (child safety) and their method (oppression of innocents). That's how they win: by keeping you focused on their carefully-prepared "syllabus". So forget all that. Instead, follow the money, and bring it to the forefront. The money is what this is all about, same as any expansion of government.

Just think what heinous acts of child abuse could go on behind those curtains. Perhaps the honourable member would leave his curtains open at all times or stand with those who commit child rape behind them.

Sent to Ralph Goodale (my MP), Stephen Harper (PM of Canada), and Vic Toews (the jackboot who insultingly claims I support child pornography because I won't kiss his ass):

I DO NOT consent to searches and spying by the government, CSIS, the RCMP, or any other police force in or out of Canada without a proper warrant.

I have nothing to hide, but it is a matter of principal. I have a right to private communications unless someone can explain to a judge WHY I should be investigated and convince them to sign a warrant.

This bill is useless in reality anyhow, because anyone but the most technically illiterate criminal will use an anonymizer and encryption, so the spying will net no proof of a crime, even if someone is surfing child porn like a psychotic fiend.

This is nothing more than a fishing expedition and an attempt to violate Canadians fundamental right to privacy.

Just say "NO" to politicians who stoop to claiming you support Evil Horrible Unimaginable Thing just because you value your own rights.

You're in favor of putting kids in ready access of tens of thousands of pedophiles since:

1) We know that predators seek places where their prey goes.2) There have been thousands of cases in the last few years of public school teachers in the US going to jail for having sex with minors.3) Whatever the cops can find is usually only the tip of the iceberg.

So clearly, since you support ripping kids out of the loving arms of their parents and putting them in public schools, you MUST be in favor of putting them at risk for actual molestation by a pedophile.

Whenever I see these peope constantly banging the drums of how we have to continually make worse laws about controlling the Internet, one thing comes to my mind:

Why do these government officials keep harping on it? Ministers like Ted Haggard attack gays constantly, and turn out to be gay themselves. Me thinks the government officials might be producing or consuming this material. Otherwise, why, might I ask, are you harping on it so much?

It's all about control. Find somebody you can make into an enemy, like Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Arabs, whatever. Paint them to be the scum of the earth. Throw a little barbeque at the Reichstag with a handpicked 'scum' as the fall guy, then pack your pet legiscritters into session when the public demands you DO SOMETHING RIGHT FUCKING NOW and get your favorite piece of totolitarian legislation pushed through to maintain 'Law and Order'.

If someone has impulses that they want to repress, that person will assume that everyone else has the same impulses. Normal people aren't worried about those things because they don't have the impulses and assume (probably rightly) that most people don't have those impulses.

Anyone who strongly wants to control other people is someone whose personal behavior should be watched very very carefully.

Never allow your children to be near anyone who walks around proclaiming that the world is full of child rapists.

The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...

The minister has gone on record to say that if you don't want the government to have a complete list of the letters you send through the mail, then you support child pornography. There is apparently no middle ground.

Now take the phone/mail analogy and replace it with everything that you do online - all the websites you visit, Facebook posts you make and emails you send. If you think that's a reasonable limit on your freedom then you should support the bill. If you don't want the government poking around your history file then you should let them know.

The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...

Not only that. One of the most important parts of the bill that's being opposed is in section 16 of the proposed act:

16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

Anonymity can now be killed without a warrant. "Persons designated under subsection (3)" are any police officers (municipal, provincial, or RCMP), CSIS, or the Commissioner of Competition.

And I should have worded the opening here not as "not only that", since that's not... accurate (did I actually read your post?). The bill requires that all TSPs have the ability to record everything (and allows for inspectors to enter any TSP to perform an inspection, with few restrictions on what they can do, which is a bit concerning). It doesn't actually require recording everything, and doesn't allow it without a warrant...

"Persons designated under subsection (3)" are any police officers (municipal, provincial, or RCMP), CSIS, or the Commissioner of Competition.

I saw something quoted from the bill earlier about what sort of police counts that included "or provincial or foreign jurdisdiction". Could persons designated under subsection (3) include the FBI? the CIA? The guys in charge of oppression in China?

Not exactly. The designated persons are:

The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.

People are calling this warrantless wiretapping are simply wrong. If you read the actual bill - not what some talking heads are saying - any production of data requires judicial oversight

Except for personally identifying subscriber information including name, phone number, address, email address, and IP address. Which is what many of the bigger critics, including Open Media, seem to be railing against.

if people insist on campaigning against it with outright falsehoods, you're going to look very silly - and undermine your own cause in the long run

Very true. I get annoyed when people just blindly repeat what they hear about a bills like this. The content is openly available on the parliament

In the UK this only applies to things said within the house of commons. I have seen people challenge MPs to repeat such allegations on programmes like Question Time & Newsnight - basically "I fucking totally dare you". The usual response is "no comment" or similar obfuscation.

Does Canada's work the same way? Perhaps someone should ask Vic Toews to step outside.

I would argue it's better to expose a few children to sex way before they're ready for it, than it is to expose all of them to an invasive government that scrutinizes their every action "for the greater good".

Eh, I was once told by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter that I was advocating for terrorists breaking military encryption because I was against the DMCA. I was trying to explain to a Town Hall meeting how the DMCA made it illegal for purchasers to exercise the right of fair use to copy a DVD because the content industry had merely put on an invisible wrapper of encryptionbasically they paid for a Bill to fleece us in the digital age. Specter went on a rant that I was talking about wanting to allow terrorists to be able to circumvent military encryption. I tried to correct him, but he was too dumb stupid to correct. (I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really being hyper-intelligent and deftly torpedoing my argument, if his rant wasn't so completely devoid of factual basis and comprised mostly of ignorant run-ons--so I can't even do that.)

Priceless was the 80-something year old lady who approached me in the parking lot while I was sitting in my car waiting to exit. I thought she was going to hit me over the head with her purse, you know, for having the gall to speak so bluntly with a Senator/Elder Statesman. Instead she said that she had no idea what I was talking about, but that was clear the Senator didn't know anything either, and that he should have instead listened to me. She was angry with him for having voted for something he clearly didn't understand. So, even if I didn't get Specter to "get it", at least one of his voters did!

I sent a letter in protest to my MP and got a similar canned response. it appears to be an answer from any conservatives in government. Here was my reply from Pierre Poilievre, my local MP.

-------------Thank you for your message.

As you point out, these Bills did not pass in an earlier session of Parliament, and will need to be re-introduced. As such, I cannot comment on them until that time and the text is available.

That being said, our message is clear: if people use technology to commit crimes, such as distributing child pornography, the police will apprehend them and they will be punished to the full extent of the law.

Sincerely,

Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-CarletonParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesLP-------------

I stand with child pornographers. When they came for the communists, I didn't speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I didn't speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the drug users, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a drug user. When they came for the terrorists, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist. When they came for the child pornographers, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a child pornographer. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out for me.

So yes, at some point we should all be speaking out, even if we don't belong with the group targeted at that point.

Don't buy into his false equivalency. I don't and won't speak out when they come for the child pornographers, because they damn well should come for child pornographers. The other groups you list are not the same (except maybe terrorists).

This post, and many others I've seen, say "I'll stand with the pornographers. They're better than a tyrannical governments." That is insane and stupid. It gives credence to his false argument. You're not standing with the pornographers, you're standing with law abidi

Reasonable thought out arguments don't get as much airtime, those that do are generally not "simple" enough for the general populace to grasp, so it's easier to say "if you aren't this then you're this" and in the US our media excels at this type of reporting, dumb down and free of depth or rational thought.

I am not a great fan of crypto nerds because I know just how idiotic the idea of a darknet is in a dictatorship. A darknet lights up light a christmas tree at your ISP if they can be bothered and in places in the world, they can be bothered. So what if it is encrypted? That never stopped the goons.

So... what do we need a free internet for? To AVOID getting that far. It would be nice if humanity always veered towards doing what was right for the greater good, if all journalists always could be counted on to ask the hard questions. That politicians don't look away because they think it helps their cause in the long term.

A free internet is a new tool to share information outside the main stream, it is as revolutionary as the printing press and the post office (For women's lib, the post office suddenly allowed them to communicate with anyone without needing permission) before. But the printing press was used to reproduce child porn and the post office was used to distribute it. Not so long ago (70's) child porn (and I am not talking David Hamilton style stuff) was produced fairly openly and sold. But this was done through tech that allowed Martin Luther to take the bible out of the church and into the domain of the common people AND to spread his anti-semitism that would on day lead to the holocaust.

Tech isn't good or bad but banning tech because there are not so nice uses for it, that is silly and dangerous. Silly because you can't put the cat back in the bag. People have tried it. The printing press, mechanical harvesters, cars. They all been attacked and are now a part of our lives. The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else at a near neg-liable cost. But this also means spammers and scammers can reach an audience in the past even Hollywood could not dream off. 911 from Nigeria might have negative overtones but it also means that people from what is not one of the most developed nations in the world can deal as equals with those developed nations. Ever tried calling Africa on the phone? Sent a wire? A letter? Sure, a percentage uses that connection for scams but how much information is being shared for the good of both sides as well?

And you can't have one without the other. Either you allow everyone to communicate or you don't. The makers of Freenet faced this, the simple fact is that the only real use for Freenet in the west at the moment is to share files that you can't share anywhere else and for a LOOOOOOONG time, that only was child porn. If you ever use Tor you can see just what it contains, hate (nazi wannabe's), a tiny bit of drugs for those who think the police has nothing better to do and under aged porn.

You can say you want to get rid of that part of Freenet but you can't. Either you have free communication or your don't. Child porn is even nastier then terrorism, I can say I am willing to take the risk of being blown up but I can't accept that risk on behalf of someone elses child.

Child porn is real and it is big, torrents are pretty clean and usenet can be realtively easy administred but as said, Tor and Freenet are full of it and so are other P2P programs. You can combat it easily, just restrict all traffic to non-encrypted, known content that is filtered and block any unknown traffic. Hiding data in data? Can't be done if the data is known, just make the Internet the Internet Microsoft and Apple dream off, all content pre-approved.

Do you think that is impossible? HA! IT IS ALREADY HERE. The movies you watch, the TV you watch, the music you listen to, the articles you read. ALL have been screened to make sure it is "safe" for you to consume. Hell, we don't even need the state for it, we do it ourselves right here on Slashdot all the time.

That is how tempting it is. If you are for a free internet, browse slashdot at -11.

It is tempting to want to get rid of child porn and you can do it, you just have to sacrifice everyones freedom and make it just a bit easier for a wannabe dictator to one day get away with it. But how do you def

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, refering to The "Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other acts" Said:
"He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers,"
"Lawful access will aid child porn investigations. I call on the NDP to stop making things easier for predators and support these measures."
Adolf Hitler himself, referring to such tactics, wrote:
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
Mr. Toews, I see you have learned your lessons well.

It is so refreshing to see that our US Imperialism has finally overcome the Canadian notion of independence. Sign this bill and the transformation will be complete. Join us in the new American hegemony! Soon we will conquer the remaining people to the south and our hold over this hemisphere will be final! Join us, O brethren from the great white north! Let us build the future together!!!

I don't understand how people like this Minister think they are helping their case. I mean, in their heads, how does the logic work?

Power-grabber: I want to grab power.Opponent: I don't trust you with that much power.Power-grabber: That's because you are an Enemy. Only Enemies want to keep their rights.Opponent: Oh, okay, now I totally trust you with that much power.

What other crime would give them an excuse to invade people's privacy to the extent the CP has? Terrorism or drugs may come close, but nothing allows them to shit on the constitution as much as CP does. I think it's a bit disingenuous for the group that is benefiting the most from the existence of CP to accuse others of being "for" it.

The data that all provides must collect will be available through online means at all time. IE police will be able to browse it easily.If a predator can get to that information they will have a gold mine. A record of all activity done by a childs phone or computer.

We have "freedom of expression" here in Canada, which is kinda sorta the same thing (watered down a bit with some not too unreasonable provisions). You can still get in trouble for saying stuff that is wrong, that you havn't made reasonable attempts to verify, and is harmful.

We let politicians get away with it in parliment so they can talk freely without worrying about a civil suit every time they open their mouth.

We (US citizens) cannot say anything we want either. The difference only being in legal frameworks under which our speech is suppressed. In Canada and Europe generally the act of suppression is more direct and civil. In the US it tends to be indirect and often violent. "Freedom of assembly? You bet, but first you need a permit and no of course you cannot assemble there, we will tell you where.", "Freedom of the press? Sure, but tell us your sources or you'll be facing jail time. Wait. You're a blogg